4.1 Article

Liquid-Liquid Extraction in a Microextractor: A Laboratory Examination and Thermodynamic Modeling of N-Hexane plus Benzene plus Sulfolane System

出版社

JIHAD DANESHGAHI
DOI: 10.30492/IJCCE.2019.37428

关键词

Liquid-liquid extraction; Microtube; Optimization; Thermodynamic modeling; NRTL; UNIQUAC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study focused on liquid-liquid extraction of the n-hexane + benzene + sulfolane system in a micro extractor, with operational variables including temperature and solvent to feed ratio. Results showed that these variables significantly impacted distribution coefficient and selectivity, reaching their peak levels at specific temperatures and in low solvent to feed ratios. NRTL and UNIQUAC models were used to assess the extraction results, confirming their high accuracy.
This study aimed at investigating liquid-liquid extraction of the three-component n-hexane + benzene + sulfolane system in a micro extractor. Experiments were carried out in a microtube with a diameter of 800 mu m using a T-shaped micromixer at a residence time of 15s. Temperature and the ratio of solvent (sulfolane) to feed (95% n-hexane + 5% benzene) investigated as operational variables. The temperature was investigated at (313.15, 323.15, and 333.15) K, and the solvent to feed ratio was investigated in five states including (0.33, 0.50, 1.00, 2.00, and 3.00) mL/mL. The results of experimental design and statistical analysis showed that operational variables had a significant impact on the distribution coefficient and selectivity. It was found that distribution coefficient and selectivity reached their highest levels at (313.15 and 32315) K, respectively. In addition, in the low volumetric solvent to feed ratio (0.33ml/ml), the highest levels of distribution coefficient and selectivity were been obtained. Finally, the results obtained for liquid-liquid extraction of n-hexane + benzene + sulfolane were assessed using NRTL and UNIQUAC models, and the results confirmed the high accuracy of both models.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据